March 29, 2007

The BBC is the future of your newspaper. Maybe.
  • But panelist Steven Rattner, who recently wrote an epitaph for newspapers in The Wall Street Journal, said the real problems ran deeper. Because readers will never linger over news online the way they did on the page, the advertising profits of yesteryear are gone for good.
    The Register reports
    ... in 2006 firms spent more hawking their wares online than they did in national newspapers. Total internet advertising budgets swelled more than 40 per cent in the UK to £2.02bn, overtaking the £1.9bn aimed at national print media.
    Seems kind of stupid to say they're never going to make as much money online as offline, when in the UK they already do...
  • Hmmmmm ... the BBC is NOT "goverment-supported" ... if the recent licence fee settlement and the Hutton Report are anything to go by, this government could be described as positively anti-BBC ...
  • "It's not fair to ask the public shareholders . . . to bear the burden of providing something for the whole society's good," he said. Well. I see I've got no choice but to sell you all for scientific experimentation.
  • "Page Temporarily Unavailable, Please Check Back Soon."
  • Page is back up now. Some of the problems the newspapers have are really of their own doing. They kinda stood by while craigslist, ebay and others stole their classified ad business. They put up some lame-o websites that require registration. They hide content so you can't google to it. The quality of their product hasn't risen with the competition. Can someone point to a really good newspaper website? Your favourite example of reaallly baaaad newspaper websites?
  • Does the Daily Growl have a website?
  • The registration is what kills them and they won't give it up. - Oh well. Does the Daily Growl have a website? The developer is still chewing it over.
  • I like the Christian Science Monitor site.
  • The Lawrence, Kansas, Journal-World site is pretty nice and has won awards.